Does Is Mean Is?

I’ve subscribed on YouTube to a channel called, “Ready to Harvest,” by a man named Joshua, who is a professor, who gives good concise explanations of what different Christian denominations believe, including comparisons between different groups of the same family, like the LCMS, WELS, and ELCA. I recommend his videos for my congregation on occasion.

He also publishes polls with official statements from different Christian denominations without stating which denomination makes the statement, to see whether his viewers agree or disagree with the statement. It is interesting, because it gives you an idea of where there is agreement among Christians. There is much agreement on the Trinity, the Divinity of Christ, and even the atonement. However, there are other statements which are very divided and cause much discussion. I normally do not participate in the discussions in the comment section, but with this one I couldn’t resist. The statement was: “The Lord’s Supper is a symbolic act of obedience whereby members of the church, through partaking of the bread and the fruit of the vine, memorialize the death of the Redeemer and anticipate His second coming.” What do you think of this statement?

Now, the statement is obviously from some non-sacramental denomination like the Baptists or one of their cousins. But the conversation which followed was more interesting. Arguing in the comment section on the internet is usually a waste of time, but I think it is good to see how other Christians are arguing, how they are being taught to defend their positions, and it is good for me to hone my skills, since I teach both young and old how to defend their faith. I should be able to do it myself.

The skill and knowledge level among the commentators varied. I had some criticizing me for believing in the sacrifice of the mass and purgatory, because they assumed that because I confess the real presence, I was Roman Catholic. Many cited the same Bible passages that we do, how Jesus says, “This is my body; this is my blood” in all four accounts of the Words of Institution in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Paul, how St. Paul argues in 1 Corinthians 10 that participation in the Sacrament is a participation in the body of Christ, and of course, you had some using John 6 as a proof text for the real presence. I saw adherents to the symbolic view, whom Lutherans historically call Sacramentarians, use some of the same Bible passages Lutherans use to make the opposite point. Many shared quotes from early church father’s confessing the real presence. One guy claimed that many church fathers disagreed with the real presence. I asked him about that, and he referred me to an article from carm.org, which I will address in another episode. I also learned a little bit about arguing. For one, be careful to accept your opponent’s terms. That can cause you to backtrack or talk past each other.

But one argument, which I had read much about in books, but hadn’t spent as much time arguing about, is the definition of the word is. Lutherans argue, Jesus said, “This is my body; this is my blood.” Is means is. The Sacramentarians argue, “Is does not always mean is. Sometimes it means ‘represents’ or ‘is a symbol of’ or ‘is like’.” Zwingli said is means signifies. They used the I Am statements from John’s Gospel, where Jesus says, “I am the door. I am the gate. I am the Good Shepherd. I am the Vine.”, as examples of Jesus using the to be verb “am” in a figurative sense, meaning, signifies, represents, or is like, or is a symbol. So, when I saw protestants using these exact same arguments almost five hundred years later, I gave the classical Lutheran response. And it didn’t go well. They were completely unaware that this was an argument from Lutherans. It was not that they had been warned of this argument from their pastor or had been taught it at seminary. They didn’t expect Lutherans to argue that am means am even in the I Am statements in John’s Gospel. So, I want to discuss today how is means is, and how this linguistic argument is important for defending the real presence in the Sacrament.

“Is” is a to be verb: I am; you are; he, she, it is. When Jesus says, “This is my body.” He is using the same verb as when He says, “I am the Vine.” This is the check mate the Sacramentarians think they have. “No one would say that Jesus is saying that He is literally a vine. So, since Jesus is speaking in a metaphor in John 15 about being a vine, then He must also be speaking in a metaphor in the Words of Institution, since Jesus equally obviously isn’t a piece of bread. Is doesn’t always mean is.” This is their argument. I believe I have summarized it fairly and that the Sacramentarians would agree with this summary.

First, this is an absurd comparison. The Lord’s Supper is Jesus’ Last Will and Testament. He calls the cup the New Testament in His Blood (Luke 22:20; 1 Cor. 11:25) or His blood of the Testament (Matthew 26:28; Mark 14:24). One does not use figurative language when making a will, testament, or covenant. In John’s I Am statements, Jesus is teaching lessons and explaining who He is and what His relationship is to God the Father and to His followers. So, to point out that Jesus used figurative language in His parables as proof that He is using figurative language when He communicates His last will and testament is not a good argument.

Yet, the Lutherans went even beyond that. They went to the vary grammatical argument. No, is still means is in the I Am statements in John. Jesus is the Vine; Jesus is the Good Shepherd; Jesus is the Door, etc. This caused a near conniption fit when said to modern Sacramentarians. They didn;t think I was being serious when I said that Jesus is actually The Vine, The Door, The Good Shepherd. But let me explain it, and I hope you will see what the old Lutherans and I mean.

In the statement “I am the Vine.” The word is means the same thing as when Jesus says, “This is my body.” “Is” is the to be verb in the present third person singular. “Am” is the to be verb in the present first person singular. Lutherans argue that the to be verb means the same thing in both situations, but it does not mean “represents, is a symbol, or is like.” It means am and is, just as if a man said, “I am a man,” or “This is my brother.” The to be verb is the verb of existence. It tells you that something is something.

If there is a figure in either of these statements, it is in the predicate, that is, the thing that is said to be: “my body” in the statement, “This is my body,” and “the Vine” in the statement, “I am the Vine.” It is the word body and vine that would take on a different meaning, not the word is. In the Old Testament, God is frequently called The Rock. In Deuteronomy 32, Moses says, “for their rock is not as our Rock.” (The Hebrew doesn’t use the to be verb there, because it normally leaves it to be implied, but the point still stands.” Is Moses saying, “Their composite of minerals is not as our composite of minerals?” No. He uses the word rock to describe God, because the word rock (צוּר), can refer to a place of refuge like a cliff, or a large flat rock on which one can build a foundation. Yet, the frequent use of the word Rock in the Old Testament took on a new meaning than referring literally to stone. So, to say, “The Lord is my Rock.” does not mean, “The Lord represents my rock.” The Word rock has become a title for God.

You can do the same thing with the word horn in Hebrew. Horn refers to a ram’s horn, but it became a synonym for power. Jesus is the horn of salvation, as Zechariah declares in Luke 1:69. But if I say that Jesus is the horn of salvaiton, I am not calling Him a ram’s horn. Neither am I saying that he represents a ram’s horn. I am saying that He is the horn of salvation, that is, He is the power of salvation.

The New Testament turned the word shepherd into a word for minister of the Gospel. The word pastor means shepherd. It is the same word in Greek. Yet, when I say, “I am a pastor,” “I am not saying, I represent a shepherd,” or “I am like a shepherd,” or “A shepherd symbolizes me.” I am saying, “I am a pastor.” The word pastor has taken on a new meaning, not a tender of sheep, but a tender of human souls.

Here’s an example from everyday life. “This man is the chair,” does not mean, “This man represents a chair” or “this man is a like a chair,” or “a chair is a symbol of this man.” And it does not mean that the man is a wooden or metal seat. The word chair comes from the word chairman which comes from chair representing the office of the person who sits in the chair, etc. This is the common course of language and how words develop new meanings and applications.

Now, let’s go back to the statement of Jesus, “I am the Vine.” Is Jesus saying that He is a piece of wood stock? Obviously not. But in the context, Jesus says, “As the branch cannot bear fruit by itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in Me. 5 I am the Vine; you are the branches.” (John 15:4-5) So, Jesus explains why He calls Himself the Vine. As a vine gives all sustenance to the branch, so Christ gives all good to the one who believes in Him. But, when Jesus calls Himself the Vine, He is using Vine in a different sense, not the word is. The Lord is my Rock. I am not changing the word is, I am changing the word Rock. Jesus is the Vine. I am not changing the ordinary meaning of the word is, I am changing the ordinary meaning of the word vine.

Now, you may be thinking that this is a pointless linguistic argument, which ends in the same place. If the figure of speech is in the predicate, but not the word is, what difference does it make.

Well, let’s look at the two sentences again. “I am the Vine” means that Jesus is the Vine. What does He mean by vine? Not a wooden stock with branches and grapes, but that from which we receive all good things through faith, which is what connects us to the Vine (Romans 11:17-24). Jesus makes this clear in John 15. “This is My body,” means This is Jesus’ body. What does Jesus mean by “My body”? Where is the figure of speech? We know that this refers to the bread that Jesus is holding, because the text says that Jesus took bread, broke it, and gave it to His disciples and said, “This is My body.” So, what does the title, My body” mean?

The Sacramentarians argue that it is impossible for Jesus to mean His actual body, because He is sitting right there with them. Yet, it is equally impossible for Jesus to be with us always when His body is at the right hand of the Father, yet Jesus still says, “Lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” No Christian doubts Jesus’ words that He is with us always. What does Jesus mean by “with you always”? Obviously, He is with us in a different way than He was with His disciples when He spoke those words, because we cannot see Him or touch Him as they could then. And obviously the bread is Jesus’ body in a different way than Jesus’ body was sitting before them, because it does not look or feel like Jesus. Yet, Jesus still says, “I am with you always,” and “This is my body.” So, the way in which He is with us and the way in which His body is present is different. But He truly means that He is with us and that it is His body.

When Jesus said, “I am the Vine,” He meant that He is the Vine. The Vine has a different meaning than a plant. When Jesus said, “I am the Door,” He wasn’t calling himself a wooden plank, but rather, the word Door means portal, that is, the entrance into eternal life. Jesus literally is the entrance into eternal life. You enter through Him through faith. When Jesus said, “I am the Good Shepherd,” He was not calling Himself a sheep herder, but He defined Good Shepherd as the one who lays down His life for His sheep, meaning, those who follow His voice. In all these statements, is means is. The predicates in the sentence take on a nuanced meaning, as Jesus explains. What is the nuanced meaning of “My body”? Scripture does not give us any. Jesus is not saying, “My body is bread.” He is saying, this which I give to you is my body. So, we Christians believe that when we eat the bread in the Sacrament, we are eating Christ’s body. Yes, we recognize that this is impossible, but all things are possible with God. Yes, we recognize that this is not what we see or feel, yet we also do not see or feel Jesus with us, yet He insists that He is with us.

Jesus is God and man. His divine nature communicates to His human nature through the personal union all His divine attributes. So, the Jesus who is omnipresent, is both God and man. And the Jesus, who is supernaturally present in the bread in Communion is also both God and man. We cannot just say, because Jesus makes a difficult statement to accept, that is does not mean is.

Grammar matters. And articulating the rules of language is more difficult than using language. We use figures of speech all the time. We use synecdoche, metonymy, hyperbole, metaphors, and allegories on a daily basis, even if we can’t define all those words. But we have to understand what makes something an allegory or a metaphor. We need to recognize when metonymy is being used, and not simply saying, “Is doesn’t mean is.” From my experience, Sacramentarians will often say, “That shouldn’t be taken literally.” Okay, but what do you mean by literally? And what part of the sentence should not be taken literally? And why?

Saying, “Jesus isn’t speaking literally about His body,” is lazy. True, not everything in the Bible is literal. The Bible uses nearly every figure of speech available to language with many literal styles and genre. But we cannot stick the label “not literal” or “metaphor,” if we are not willing to do the work and explain what that means.